apple.news/AR4xSsFY_QjeGQSlPtTNn2w

Advertisements

A few thoughts on the whole gun situation

Backdrop: Parkland high school shooting, yet another in 2018, in a long string of school shootings for the past couple decades, except this time the kids are fighting mad.  Millions of articles about gun control, gun rights, mental health, white terrorism, the loss of the American male, and more.

I have a simple proposal for guns in America.

  1. Guns are tools. They aren’t moral objects, nor should we fear them. However, we should be clear about their primary goal as a tool: to kill.  I’m not against hunting (for food or for reasonable sport), nor am I a pacifist. I was raised around guns, learned to shoot at age 5 because we lived in the mountains. I’m still a damn good shot, and I own guns.
  2. Guns are tools, but people make (im)moral choices in how to use them. Some people should never be allowed to own a tool whose purpose is death, because the person cannot be entrusted with that power. I’d prefer that the determination for who can/shouldn’t own a firearm be placed in the hands of a group: law enforcement (background checks), legislators (gun restrictions, policies, and laws), and health professionals (mental health checks).
  3. Many tools in our world are regulated. The more powerful the tool, the more responsibility on the user – and thus, the greater the oversight.  When there were only a few million cars on the road, nobody cared if a 14 year old was joyriding in a Model T on a back road somewhere.   But as the car grew up and became a larger factor in the lives of Americans, so did the laws surrounding it.   Likewise, firearms in America ARE currently regulated. We aren’t talking about banning all guns or allowing people to own whatever the hell they want. (Well, I certainly am not, and I’m not going to vote for anyone who holds either of those impractical positions.)
  4. We don’t have good statistical information on gun deaths because Congress has banned the CDC from tracking the data or studying it. This is remarkably partisan and foolish, and I would like to see this regulation repealed IMMEDIATELY.  Refusing to collect data and publish it is cowardice.
  5. In my opinion, the swath of school shootings suggests that the regulations in play are not sufficient for keeping the most dangerous weapons out of the hands of people who should not access them.  You can fight me on this; at some point, it’s a judgment call, and I think the uptick in large-scale gun deaths works against your argument.
  6. Congress should limit the sale and ownership of guns capable of killing many people in rapid succession. This includes semi-automatic and automatic assault rifles, but is not limited to those.  I would also limit the size of clips or perhaps the amount of rounds that can be purchased by one person within a reasonable time frame, apart from special licenses that require annual renewals.
  7. We need to offer incentives for companies to develop mechanisms that tie a handgun to the owner’s biometrics or an electronic key (or whatever) to reduce the number of handguns passed around by criminals, or criminals shooting handgun owners with their own guns.
  8. I support a nationwide gun buy-back for any firearm that would go under tighter restriction or ban, as well as ammo buy-backs.  I would allow a 3-5 year transition period, with gun regulations tightening slowly over time.
  9. All gun owners should be required to take and pass an 8 hour gun safety course.  If you grew up shooting with a parent or family friend, the class will be a breeze for you. But if you want to own guns yourself or shoot at ranges, you need to be licensed.  Unlicensed owners would be subject to fines and penalties, and people who violate particular laws would lose the right to get licences for gun ownership. I realize that doesn’t keep criminals from owning guns, but it does put additional controls into the hands of prosecutors.

Not about guns, but other factors that we need to address as a society:

  • We need to increase access to mental health resources. So many people who would benefit from counseling or therapy cannot get it.
  • Toxic masculinity is destroying young men.
  • So is rigid schooling driven by assessment (testing) rather than exploration and discovery.  Boys are disproportionately harmed by “sit down and sit still” expectations in school, from kindergarten through college.
  • Citizens United was a horrific decision. Dark money has flooded politics. I would ban all political contributions.  OK, that’s unrealistic. Then I would overturn Citizens United, redefine free speech to apply to individuals rather than organizations or corporations, and require that political contributions be public knowledge.  I’d ban political advertising.
  • Kill the 24 hour news cycle. It’s destroying us.

Great read on Christianity and gender roles

Many men’s ministries operate on fundamental assumptions that men are not only unable to understand emotions or relationships, but that they aren’t interested in theology or spiritual matters, either. We worry about the “feminization” of the Church and the decline in male church attendance and decide that we need a better marketing strategy to attract men. As a result, we treat men like overgrown children who need to be tricked with steaks and car shows to get them interested in church activities.

However, many of these same churches and ministries also believe that men should exclusively teach or lead in their churches. We treat men as irresponsible while operating as if they’re the only competent leaders. This isn’t just an awkward tension; it has real and harmful effects on our ministries.

When we simultaneously treat men as both immature or undisciplined andexclusively capable of leadership, we prime our churches and ministries for excusing or justifying sexual abuse. We excuse bad behavior by placing the burden of “controlling” or “civilizing” men on women even as we grant power exclusively to these supposedly uncontrollable men.

Excellent piece here. Heartily recommend.

When Christians Resort to Lazy Gender Stereotypes, Both Women and Men Suffer by Kaitlyn Scheiss, at Christ and Pop Culture

 

 

Emotional Labor: An area of gender inequality

This article may disturb you and its tone might offend you, but it’s still a valuable read:

Emotional labor is the unpaid job men still don’t understand.
Source: Stop Calling Women Nags — How Emotional Labor is Dragging Down Gender Equality

Gemma Hartley attempts to explain a situation so common to us women that it never occurred to me to give it a name. (And let me clarify that I’m not posting this because I feel like my husband throws emotional labor on me of this sort. But it’s definitely a topic we’ve had to learn to talk through and come to agreements on.)

Hartley tells a familiar scenario: she wanted her Mother’s Day gift to be a cleaning service deep-clean of her bathrooms and windows (IIRC) and she wanted her husband to take up the work of figuring out which service to hire and scheduling it. Her husband balked a bit at the price and offered to clean everything himself. Not wanting to offend him or cause a fight or try to explain, Hartley agreed…. then gritted her teeth while he scrubbed the bathrooms (pretty well) the entire weekend. It wasn’t what she wanted because what she really desired as a gift was not having to think about the cleaning.

What her husband did not understand was that, for Harley as with most of us women, having her man “underfoot” doing a chore she’d rather hire out created its own level of “work” – what she terms emotional labor.  The work of poring over Angie’s List to locate a reputable company takes hours of research and anxiety about the research; making the calls to line things up; or having to step over a husband bent over the toilet.  Those are all forms of mental work.

Women tend to be the house-despots (to borrow the koine Greek term):  we tend to be the ones who carry the entire logistical structure of a household in our heads.  Mothers know which kids will eat carrots and which won’t.  Wives know why they want the measuring spoons in this drawer and not that one, regardless of whether we can explain this distinction to anyone else’s satisfaction. Making decisions takes considerable mental and emotional weight for many women; perhaps this is true of men too, but they don’t seem to be nearly as hung up about it.

When we women talk about the ways in which housework never seems to be divided “fairly,” some men push back. And many men DO pick up quite a bit of household chore work, and for that we women are genuinely grateful. But there’s an additional layer of work that remains invisible to most men, for reasons I cannot fully explain. The way in which work is done is, for women, part of the work itself.

That’s why I get irrationally cranky sometimes when my husband so kindly offers to help me cook supper. Except he doesn’t stir the pasta with the same spoon I’m using; he ‘dirties’ another spoon, usually the big plastic serving spoon.  I fume inside: Why are we subjecting this Farberware nylon utensil to boiling hot pasta water when the wooden spoon that we’re using for the sauce is impervious to heat?  Why are we using seven different utensils to make this dish in the first place? Why did he lay the stirring spoon flat on the countertop where it’s leaving behind a puddle of tomato goo that might possibly stain the surface? that’s what the spoon rest is for!!   

This mental dialogue annoys me for two reasons: first, I feel petty for even allowing it to happen, and two, it reminds me of the things that genuinely annoy me about trying to cook with someone else beside me.

What Hartley brings to the discussion is the idea that women are not petty or insecure or “nags” when we demand that certain tasks be done in very particular ways. Her husband missed the point by insisting that he could meet the need she identified, because he couldn’t even see the real need: a clear mind, free from the concern of how her bathrooms would get cleaned.  She wanted a release from the emotional labor of the chore as well as the chore itself.

Would the cleaning service still cause emotional labor for Hartley? Of course! But Hartley can be bitchy toward a cleaning lady if she has to (or touch up afterwards herself, satisfied that 95% of the work was already done).  To carry that dissatisfaction into her relationship with her husband was disheartening and damaging. Instead of getting a Mother’s Day present she wanted, she ended up in a minor fight with her spouse.

I realize this is a dangerous topic partly because it implies there are gender differences, and that’s generally frowned on in some circles these days. Well, screw it. I think there ARE gendered differences – maybe they’re learned rather than innate, but they certainly exist.  And I think all men could benefit from learning this simple principle when they are young boys:

To: Men
From: Women
Re: Emotional Labor

HI, guys!  Gonna keep this short and to the point. In exchange, please promise you’ll just believe me and not insist that I somehow “prove” this to you.  Trust me, you’ll be better off to accept this advice and act on it, and work to understand it later.

We women tend to have very particular ways we want things done. It doesn’t apply to all things and you probably can’t predict it. But sometimes when you can sense something is wrong and we can’t tell you, this is the culprit.

Women build complex mental models for how we want certain things to work. If you mess with those mental models, it pisses us off. I’m sorry; I wish I could turn off this part of my brain. But I can’t, and neither can most of the women in your life.

This phenomenon is what we might term emotional labor: the need that some of us have to control minute details of particular tasks. It’s exhausting, but it’s also the Force that holds the Universe together. If you were lucky to grow up in a household where you had warm food, clean clothes, a soft bed, and access to school, there was probably a woman in your life who made that happen. (There are some men who carry the brunt of emotional labor for the household logistics, but in American households, this still seems to be rare, even with stay-at-home dads.)

When your mom screams at you for the 1000th time to pick up your damn shoes instead of leaving them at the door, she’s mad because you’ve added to her emotional workload – she has to think about your damn shoes, on top of everything else. When your girlfriend gets mad because you tried (and failed) fold her clothes (or yours) out of the dryer AND gets mad that you never want to help her with laundry, she’s pissed that you aren’t as particular as she is about these details, and it feels unfair that she has to do all of this herself. The classic example is the guy who steps around a box on the floor for days until the woman, seething with rage, cuttingly drops passive-aggressive hints about his broken arms or weak muscles. Eventually the guy (if he’s been around a few females in his life) might catch on and put the box away on his own. Woe to the man who drives a woman to demand outright that he do a chore so obvious, she’s in a rage about even having to utter the request.

You might respond: Hey, I never asked you to carry this load. Don’t get mad at me for your stupid insistence on these dumb details. And in a way, you’re right.  Like I said, I wish we could turn off this setting in our brains.

But understand: our insane attention to emotional labor explains why your mom remembered not only your birthday but also the birthday of every friend you ever brought over to play, and the kid’s food allergies.  It explains how you were able to open the frig most days and find a snack you would actually eat, or why she told you to piss off if you ate all the snacks on Day 1 after grocery shopping. (You ran through supplies faster than she’d planned.)  It explains how, even if you grew up poor, like I did, there was still a pile of presents under the tree.  (My mom shopped all year long and hid things in her secret places for months.)

So the best thing you guys can do is learn to ASK us whether you’re accidentally doing something to make our lives harder.  With enough patience and trust, we can learn to communicate why we’re mad. And you can learn not to argue as much about what we’re asking you to do.

You can also (gently) remind us that we women have the right to ask you to do something, or to tell you how to do it – but not both. 😉 (That’s a maxim my husband started repeating early in our marriage, and it prevented a lot of foolish fights.)

 

Nil

There is nothing good in this world
That evil has not fingered,
Kissed, touched, ogled.

Innocence and optimism lie
Botched and mangled at the bottom
Of the chasm between “then” and “now.”

There is nothing good in these hearts of ours,
Skulking and raging through this most absurd of years.
Historians nod and return to their dead tales,
The dead harm us less than the living these days.

Our atrocities are new every morning;
Great is our faithlessness.

*written in 2017, exasperated and angry, weary of every new horrible headline

More Bible? More “liberal”

Just gonna leave this here and back away slowly….

Since actual Bible reading seems to destroy any belief in Republican Jesus, it’s likely many Christians would prefer to walk on hot coals than read the book they profess to believe in.

Source: Warning: Actual Bible Reading Likely To Turn You Into A Liberal, Study Shows | Addicting Info | The Knowledge You Crave

By the way, this has been 100% true for me. The more I interact with the words of Scripture — whether Old Testament histories, the Prophets, the Gospels, the Epistles, anywhere — the more my views of the world and how it should work lean toward the left.

I am more convinced than ever that American conservatism, especially when mixed with  Evangelicalism, is centered primarily on greed, self-centeredness, self-righteousness, moralism, and fear.

None of those are biblical virtues.

What’s in a name?

I first heard the quote attributed to Churchill: If you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart. If you’re still a liberal after 35, you have no head. 

Turns out the actual provenance of the quote is pretty murky, but it certainly wasn’t Churchill who first said it.  [Source: If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain | Quote Investigator]   But the old saw makes some sense: shouldn’t classic liberalism with its focus on society working toward the good of the whole fall by the wayside as adults mature into their prime earning years when the tax demands of a social safety net begin to pinch?

Well, one would think.  Except that I seem to be running this the opposite direction.

I’m not here to argue over what political position someone should take, or even to assert that I’m certain of mine. But 2016 was a hell of a year for me.  It was the year I could no longer quietly observe Christian conservatives sacrifice everything about their moral code to support an unfit presidential candidate on the hopes that he might appoint a Supreme Court justice who would uphold “religious liberty” and overturn Roe v Wade. It’s also the year I left my PCA church for a complex network of reasons that I’m not going to discuss here in post number one.  Maybe later.

I’ve been sick to my stomach with anger and grief nearly every morning of 2017. It’s begun to wear on my body: my blood pressure is up, I don’t sleep as well.  I have always been in Christian circles where prayer was a standard response to any hardship. But I’ve never been so overwhelmed by a need to call upon the Judge Who Sees All to intervene in this mess of a planet.  I’ve never been so grieved to watch greed on our national stage play out into policies that harm the poor or women or children or the sick or elderly or refugees.

I am exasperated.

I’ve decided that if I’m to be eaten up inside by the tales of gross abuse of people in the name of Jesus, the least I can do is read the Prophets like my life depends on it.  These men addressed what most of their time did not want to hear: how the leaders of Israel, both spiritual and political, loved invoking God’s name: “God’s chosen people.” But they had utterly failed to live as God’s people.  Eating the poor to become more rich isn’t very godly.  Saying you’re moral while failing to live out actual morality isn’t godly.

I can’t think of a more relevant way to confront 2017, where each morning’s perusal of the news elicits from me, “What new fresh hell is this?’

Come along for the ride if you want.